Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MisterBadger t1_j7iex5o wrote

Reply to comment by klop2031 in [N] Getty Images sues AI art generator Stable Diffusion in the US for copyright infringement by Wiskkey

If "science" can't move to the next base without getting enthusiastic consent from the other parties it hopes to involve, then "science" should damn well keep its mitts to itself. In the case of OpenAI, "science" got handsy with people's personal stuff who were unaware of what was going on, and who would not have given consent if they had known. OpenAI's approach to science is creepy, unethical, and messed up.

2

klop2031 t1_j7qcak1 wrote

Take a gander here: https://youtu.be/G08hY8dSrUY At min 8 and 9 sec Seems like no one knows how scotus will deal with it but a good argument is that an AI is experiencing are like humans and generates new work by mixing in its skill.

Further, it seems like the law may only differentiate it by the intelligences' physical makeup.

And to be honest, it seems like the only ppl mad about generative networks producing art are the artists about to lose their jobs.

Who cares if an AI can create art, if one only cares about the creative aspect then the human can make art too, no one is stopping them. But really its about money.

0

MisterBadger t1_j7rj1bf wrote

Machine learning algorithms are not even "intelligent" enough to filter out Getty watermarks.

They do not have minds or experiences, any more than zbrush or cinema4D or any other complicated software do.

Furthermore, they do not produce outputs like humans do - the speed and scale are more akin to automated car factories than human tinkers.

Fair use laws were not designed with them in mind.

1